ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree
in English Language Education
By
Monica Ella Harendita
Student Number: 051214048
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree
in English Language Education
By
Monica Ella Harendita
Student Number: 051214048
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
2009
ii A Thesis on
ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS
By
Monica Ella Harendita
Student Number: 051214048
Approved by
Date
Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. 24 August 2009
iii
ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS
By
MONICA ELLA HARENDITA
Student Number: 051214048
Defended before the Board of Examiners on 12 September 2009
and Declared Acceptable
Board of Examiners
Chairperson : Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. _____________
Secretary : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________
Member : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________
Member : Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________
Member : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________
Yogyakarta, 12 September 2009
Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University
Dean
iv
“My thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways My ways.”
–Isaiah 55:8
v
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work
or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the
references, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, 24 August 2009
The Writer
Monica Ella Harendita
vi ABSTRACT
Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
English questions are often applied by English language teachers to check the students’ understanding. Nonetheless, as most of English language teachers in Indonesia are also EFL learners, they may produce ungrammatical questions. It becomes contrary to the fact that teachers should be models who are to give correct examples to the students. Therefore, it turns out to be favourable to figure out errors in English question formations as well as to find out the causes for the errors.
There were three research questions presented in this study: (1) What kinds of error do the participants make in forming grammatical English questions? (2) Why do the participants make errors in forming grammatical English questions? (3) What are possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English question forms?
In order to answer those three research questions, the writer conducted a document analysis and an interview. The document analysis aimed at finding out the errors in English questions formations made by the participants, who were Microteaching Class students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in 2008/2009 academic year. The documents were the video transcriptions of the participants’ teaching performances. The errors found were then classified into several categories based on surface strategy taxonomy. Afterward, the interview was carried out to discover the reasons why the participants made the errors and to help the writer propose possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English questions.
From the data gathered, the findings showed that most of the errors belonged to omission category (30.8%), and were subsequently followed by misordering (26.2%), uninverted forms (21.3%), misformation (12.1%), and addition (9.5%). The interview revealed three major causes which made the participants make errors, namely focus on fluency, nervousness, and lack of knowledge of English grammar. After figuring out the errors and their causes, there were two possible recommendations that the writer would like to propose in order to improve the production of grammatical English questions, namely practices and classroom error correction. Furthermore, the writer also offered suggestions addressed to students, teachers, and other researchers who also have an interest in this topic.
vii ABSTRAK
Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Kalimat tanya sering digunakan oleh para guru untuk mengetahui sejauh mana siswa memahami materi. Namun, karena kebanyakan guru Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia juga mempelajari Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, ada kemungkinan mereka memproduksi kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris yang salah. Karena guru diharapkan menjadi contoh bagi siswa, kesalahan dalam penyusunan kalimat tanya berikut penyebabnya menjadi berguna untuk dipelajari.
Ada tiga pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini: (1) Kesalahan apa yang dibuat partisipan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris? (2) Mengapa partisipan membuat kesalahan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris? (3) Apa rekomendasi yang mungkin diberikan untuk meningkatkan produksi kalimat tanya yang benar?
Untuk menjawab ketiga pertanyaan tersebut, penulis melakukan analisa dokumen dan wawancara terhadap siswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro (Microteaching) tahun ajaran 2008/2009 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma. Dokumen yang dianalisa merupakan transkrip dari video rekaman siswa pada saat berlatih mengajar. Kesalahan-kesalahan yang ditemukan kemudian dikategorikan berdasarkan surface strategy taxonomy. Kemudian, wawancara dilakukan untuk mengetahui mengapa siswa membuat kesalahan. Selain itu, data yang didapat melalui wawancara dapat berguna bagi penulis dalam memberikan rekomendasi untuk meningkatkan produksi kalimat tanya yang benar.
Hasil analisa data menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan kesalahan yang ditemukan termasuk dalam omission category (30.8%), kemudian diikuti dengan misordering (26.2%), uninverted forms (21.3%), misformation (12.1%), dan addition (9.5%). Hasil wawancara menunjukkan bahwa fokus dalam kelancaran berbicara, grogi, dan kurangnya pemahaman akan tata Bahasa Inggris menjadi faktor yang menyebabkan siswa membuat kesalahan. Setelah mengetahui kesalahan dan penyebabnya, penulis memberikan dua rekomendasi supaya produksi kalimat tanya yang benar meningkat, yaitu latihan dan koreksi. Selain itu, penulis juga memberikan saran kepada murid, guru, maupun peneliti lainnya yang juga tertarik pada bidang ini.
viii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama : Monica Ella Harendita
Nomor Mahasiswa : 05 1214 048
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students
Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata
Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain,
mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan
mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis
tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya
selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta,
Pada tanggal: 25 September 2009
Yang menyatakan
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My biggest gratefulness and never-ending gratitude go to my faithful
companions, Lord Jesus Christ and Mother Mary, for endowing me with splendid
blessings and love.
I would like to express my deepest and sincere appreciation to my sponsor,
Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. Her enduring guidance and valuable suggestions
have given influential contributions to this thesis.
I am greatly indebted to the lecturers of Microteaching class, Christina
Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd., Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A., and Caecilia
Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., who have opened chances for me to access the data I
needed, and to all lecturers who have shared their knowledge and advice which
were beneficial for me in finishing this thesis.
Sincere thanks are also expressed to Microteaching class students of
2008/2009 academic year, who have given me permission to copy the videos of
their teaching performances, and to all assistants of Microteaching laboratory for
helping me copy the videos.
Profound thankfulness is addressed to my beloved parents, Bapak Dionysius Hartoyo and Ibu Yohanna Avilla Endang Dwi Rahayu, for always supporting me with magnificent love and care; to my elder sister, Melania Shinta
Harendika, whose hard work always seems admirable to me; to my little sister,
Hillary Kirana Harendira, for always painting my days with laughter and joy; and
x
My special indebtedness goes to all of my best friends, especially Hanna,
Nina, Ncit, Mega, Dee, and Tunjung, and to all of my friends in PPL II, KKN 18,
MC, MMS St. Antonius, PSM Cantus Firmus, as well as students of ELESP who
have considerably supported me.
I would like to express my thankfulness to all Realians, who have become
professional partners as well as a big blissful family for me, making me more than
happy to have them all.
I would also like to thank Ignatius ‘ie-be’ Indra Kristianto for being my
number-one supporter. His love, patience, support and prayers have poured
inspirations upon my days.
My gratitude is also expressed to my landlady,BuNur, for her kindness in every single way she does.
At last, I would like to thank all friends and people whose names cannot
be mentioned one by one. I thank them all for lending me a hand in finishing this
thesis.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE………... i
APPROVAL PAGES………... ii
DEDICATION PAGE……….. iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY……… v
ABSTRACT………. vi
ABSTRAK………. vii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS………. xi
LIST OF TABLES………... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES……….. xv
LIST OF APPENDICES……….. xvi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background……….. 1
B. Problem Formulation………... 4
C. Problem Limitation……….. 4
D. Research Objectives...……….. 5
E. Research Benefits………. 5
F. Definition of Terms……….. 6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description………... 8
1. Error.………. 8
a. The Definition of Error………..… 8
b. Error Analysis……….……... 10
c. Types of Errors………..… 11
xii
e. Ways to Minimize Errors……….. 15
2. Parts of the English Sentence……… 16
a. Subject and Predicate……… 16
b. Operator, Auxiliary and Predication…………. 17
3. Types of Question……….. 18
a. The Types and Functions ofYes-noQuestion………. 18
b. The Types and Functions ofWh- Question……… 19
4. The Formation of Questions……….. 20
a. Yes-noQuestions…………..……….. 20
b. Wh-Questions……… 21
5. Uninverted Questions………. 23
B. Theoretical Framework……… 23
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY A. Research Methods……… 25
B. Research Participants……….. 25
C. Research Instruments……….. 26
1. Documents………. 26
2. Interview……… 27
3. The Researcher as Research Instrument……... 28
D. Data Gathering Technique……….. 28
E. Data Analysis Technique……… 28
F. Research Procedure ……… 29
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. The Errors in the English Questions……… 32
1. Data Presentation……….. 32
2. Discussion………. 36
xiii
1. Data Presentation……….. 40
2. Discussion………. 41
C. Possible Recommendations to Improve the Production of Grammatical English Questions.. 46
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions………. 49
B. Suggestions………. 50
1. For Students………... 50
2. For Teachers……….. 51
3. For Other Researchers……… 52
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 The Classifications of Errors and Their Examples……… 34
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 A Sentence Analysis to Differentiate Auxiliary
as Operator from predication……….. 17
2.2 The Deep Structure for the QuestionWhen will the boy leave?... 20 2.3 The Surface Structure for the QuestionWhen will the boy leave?.. 21 2.4 The Deep Structure of aWh-Question………... 22 2.5 Wh-Movement and Inversion Transformations..……… 22
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A Video Transcripts……….. 55
B List of Errors and the Classifications……… 73
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of research background, problem formulation, problem
limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.
A. Research Background
In this country, English teacher candidates generally are also EFL learners.
They first learn English as a foreign language before they are ready to teach it.
Thus, they may find difficulties in the learning process due to the fact that each
language is unique and has its own system. According to Setiyadi (2006: 23), a
language is always different from any other languages although it is similar to
some languages. Moreover, Setiyadi adds that language learners whose mother
tongue has no tenses tend to have more difficulties in learning a target language
which has tenses. It can be inferred that Bahasa Indonesia, which does not have any tenses, seems to be dissimilar from English language, which is affected by
tenses in the sentence formations. Hence, Indonesian EFL learners may find it
problematic to learn English language, particularly English grammar.
Considering those cases, the writer thinks that the research aiming to analyze
learners’ errors in English grammar is still crucial. Furthermore, according to
Corder (1967) as cited in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 51), learner errors are
significant in three ways: (1) They serve a pedagogic purpose by showing teachers
what learners have learned and what they have not yet mastered, (2) They serve a
research purpose by providing evidence about how languages are learned, (3)
They serve a learning purpose by acting as devices by which learners can discover
the rules of the target language. Besides, in EFL learning, particularly in
Indonesia, error analysis and correction become significant to build up accuracy
since English language is not used to communicate in the society (Setiyadi, 2003:
21-22).
One of the parts of English grammar with which the writer is concerned is
the formation of English questions. The formation of English questions is
considered as basic knowledge which needs to be applied when teaching. Teacher
candidates will often deal with the formation of English questions when they have
become a real teacher in the class since asking questions seems to be one of the
stimuli used during the teaching process. Questions may become a means to elicit
the answers from the students as well as to prompt the students to put into words
what they have understood.
In addition, one of the studies showing that forming questions is still
problematic is a study conducted by a senior among SLTPK Santa Maria Sawangan Magelangstudents. From the findings, it can be seen that the students’ competence in constructing interrogative word questions was still average.
Febrianti (2004: 57) concluded that although the students had already mastered
the interrogative word questions, they still made errors.
Unlike the study mentioned previously, which focused on the error analysis
of the construction of interrogative word questions, this study focuses on the
wh- questions. Furthermore, the participants are not students of a high school but the students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata
Dharma University, particularly those taking Microteaching class.
The study program aims at preparing the students to be English teachers in
the future. The students do not only learn English language but also learn how to
teach it. Usually, in the first three semesters, the students are equipped with the
theory of English language and deal with skills of listening, speaking, reading and
writing. When they have come to the fourth semester, they start learning how to
design and teach English language courses. Hence, besides knowing how to teach,
the students should also master English well to make them qualified in teaching
English. Nevertheless, errors may be encountered in the students’ sentence
production, either in spoken or in written forms.
The basis why the writer chooses Microteaching class as the sample is
because the students are supposed to have already passed the last level of
Structure class, namely Structure V. Moreover, Microteaching class is a threshold
for them to be a teacher and to apply what they have learned in their prior
semesters. In this stage, they are to prove how well they have acquired English
grammar. Since they become role models for the students, every single utterance
they produce in teaching should be grammatically correct. Thus, an error analysis
on the formation of English questions is an aid which is expected to enhance the
B. Problem Formulation
Through this study, the writer formulates the problems which are presented
into three questions.
1. What kinds of error do the participants make in forming grammatical
English questions?
2. Why do the participants make errors in the formation of grammatically
correct English questions?
3. What are possible recommendations to improve the production of
grammatical English question forms?
C. Problem Limitation
The writer limits the problems by focusing on the errors in forming English
questions faced by the students of Microteaching class of Sanata Dharma
University. The grounds for the limitation are that the students have passed
Structure V class and they are prepared to be English teachers whose sentence
production is expected to be grammatically correct.
The writer limits the types of question as well. Questions, in this study, refer
to yes-no questions and interrogative word or wh- questions. Furthermore, the errors are those found in their speech production when the students perform their
teaching practice. As it is related to spoken production in which corrections may
D. Research Objectives
Dealing with the three questions mentioned previously, the research is
conducted to achieve three objectives:
1. Figuring out the errors made by the participants in forming grammatical
English questions.
2. Finding out the causes why the participants make errors in forming
grammatically correct English questions.
3. Recommending possible solutions to improve the production of grammatical
English question forms.
E. Research Benefits
This research is beneficial for both lecturers and students, particularly who
are involved in ELESP. For the students, the research helps them analyze the
common errors occurring in the formation of grammatical English questions.
Noticing the errors, they are expected not to make the same errors anymore. The
analysis on the errors would also help them have a deeper understanding on the
formation of grammatical English questions.
For the lecturers, this research serves as a means to obtain the depiction of
the students’ mastery in forming English questions. Therefore, by knowing the
causes for the errors faced by the students, it is expected that there will be possible
F. Definition of Terms
There are some terms mentioned in this study that need to be defined in
order to avoid misunderstanding and to lead readers to a better understanding on
the topic being discussed.
1. Errors
Since ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ are often used synonymously, in this study, it
is needed to define the meaning of errors. Brown (1987: 170) points out that a
mistake can be a random guess or a slip reflecting a performance error. Besides,
he adds that as a direct manifestation of learners’ operated system, error is an
obvious deviation from the grammar of an adult native speaker. According to
Harmer (2007: 96), while slips can be corrected by the ones making mistakes,
errors cannot be corrected by themselves.
Although errors and mistakes have been clearly defined, differentiating
between errors and mistakes has not always been simple and, therefore, needs
careful analysis. Hence, in this study, errors refer to all deviant forms in English
question formations produced by Microteaching class students when they
practiced teaching.
2. Question
Another key word of this research is ‘question’. A question, as defined by
Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999), is an interrogative expression or query. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973:191) also define questions as
a. The placing of the operator immediately in front of the subject:
Will John speak to the boss today?
b. The initial positioning of an interrogative orwh-element: Who will you speak to?
c. Rising intonation:
You will speak to the BóSS?
In this study, questions refer to interrogative sentences which bear the (a),
(b), and (c) criteria as written previously. Since questions can be either in spoken
form or in written form, it is important to specify that questions in this research
are those which are spoken.
3. Microteaching Class
In this study, Microteaching class refers to a class or subject offered to sixth
semester students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of
Sanata Dharma University. This class prepares the students to teach, especially
before they carry out the teaching practice in junior or senior high schools through
Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL).There are two kinds of teaching practice done in this class. The first one is peer teaching in the Microteaching laboratory
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the writer discusses the related literature which serves as the
basis to answer the research questions. There are two major parts in this chapter,
namely theoretical description and theoretical framework.
A. Theoretical Description
This part provides theories on error, parts of the English sentence, types of
question, the formation of questions and uninverted questions.
1. Error
Since this study deals with error analysis, it becomes significant to provide
the theories supporting the analysis. The discussion involves the definition of
error, error analysis, types of error, sources of error and ways to minimize errors.
a. The Definition of Error
Defining the word error has long become an interesting discussion by some
scholars. The characterization of error remains vague, yet it is significant to
discern error among any other terms which seem to be synonymous with error.
One term that is often used synonymously with error is mistake. Harmer (2007:
96) classifies error, slip and attempt as sorts of mistake. While slips can be
corrected by the ones making mistakes, errors cannot be corrected by themselves.
Besides, the term attempt is used when someone wants to say something but does
not yet know how to say it.
Slips are mistake which students can correct themselves, once the mistake has been pointed out to them. Errors are mistakes which they can’t correct themselves-and which, therefore, need explanation. Attempts are mistakes that students make when they try to say something but do not know yet how to say it.
Brown (1987: 170) defines error and mistake in another way. He points out
that a mistake can be a random guess or a slip reflecting a performance error. It
means that someone who makes mistakes does not succeed in utilizing a known
system correctly. Besides, he adds that as a direct manifestation of learners’
operated system, error is an obvious deviation from the grammar of an adult
native speaker.
Rather than differentiating between error and mistake, Corder (1974: 24-25)
prefers to distinguish between errors of performance, which are unsystematic, and
errors of competence, which are systematic.
We must therefore make a distinction between those errors which are the product of such chance circumstances and those which reveal his underlying knowledge of the language to date, or, as we may call it his transitional competence. The errors of performance will characteristically be unsystematic and the errors of competence, systematic.
In other words, what Corder means by errors of performance is the same as what
Brown calls mistakes, and the term errors of competence is the same as errors in
Brown’s definition.
Although the differences of error and mistake have been obviously defined,
Brown (1987: 171) adds that it is not always simple to distinguish between an
observed since the underlying grounds of their production are not easy to
determine. It is also supported by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982: 139) who state
that although it is very important to make a distinction between performance and
competence error, it is often not easy to find out the nature of a deviation since it
should involve precise analysis.
b. Error Analysis
Error analysis is closely related to contrastive analysis. Dulay et al. (1982:
140) state that based on contrastive analysis, the differences between the first and
the second language account for the majority of errors made by a second language
learner. Conversely, many cases show that the grounds for errors that a second
language learner produces can not always be traced to their first language.
Error analysis has yielded insights into the L2 acquisition process that have stimulated major changes in teaching practices. Perhaps its most controversial contribution has been the discovery that the majority of the grammatical errors second language learners make do not reflect the learner’s mother tongue but very much like those young children make as they learn a first language. (Dulay et al., 1982: 138)
Hence, the favour to error analysis started rising since contrastive analysis, which
was popular up through the 1960’s, seemed to fail in predicting the errors that
would be produced by second language learners.
Error analysis, according to Asher’s definition (1994: 740), is “the procedure
of describing and explaining errors systematically.” Similar to Asher’s, the
procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learner errors.” In brief,
error analysis is the study of learners’ errors in both speaking and writing.
Besides, Asher (1994: 740) states that error analysis has both pedagogical
and psycholinguistic aims. It has pedagogical aim because it provides feedback
related to the teaching methods as well as the materials employed by the teachers.
In addition, it has a psycholinguistic aim since it can depict the way learners learn
and produce languages.
c. Types of Error
Since errors can be numerously found in the language production of second
language learners, it becomes essential to classify the errors based on the type so
that it will be easier to analyze. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 146), there are
four taxonomies used to classify errors.
1). Linguistic Category Taxonomy
According to Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111), this taxonomy, which is one
of the earliest error taxonomies, classifies errors by their linguistic type. Dulay et
al. (1982: 146) shape the definition, stating that this taxonomy classifies errors
“according to either or both the language component or the particular linguistic
constituent the error affects.” Language components consist of phonology
(pronunciation), syntax and morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon
(meaning and vocabulary), and discourse (style). Constituents include the
2). Surface Strategy Taxonomy
Dulay et al. (1982: 150) state that this taxonomy “highlights the way surface
structures are altered.” Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111) add that this taxonomy
classifies errors by “the structural deformations the utterance undergoes.” This
taxonomy is then divided into four sub-classifications, namely omission, addition,
misformation and misordering.
a). Omission
An error is classified into this category when there is an absence of an item
that must be present in a well-formed sentence, e.g.: *Mary president new companyinstead ofMary is the president of the new company.
b). Additions
Contrary to omission, addition is characterized by “the presence of an item
which must not appear in a well-formed utterance.” Three types of addition are
double-marking, regularization, and simple addition. Double marking refers to an
error in an utterance containing two or more items which are marked for the same
feature. For example, *He doesn’t knows my nameinstead ofHe doesn’t know my name. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 157), regularization errors that fall under the addition category are “those in which a marker that is typically added to a
linguistic item is erroneously added to exceptional items of the given class that do
not take a marker,” e.g.: *sheeps and *putted. The third category of addition is called simple addition. An addition error is a simple addition if it is neither a
c). Misformation
Dulay et al. (1982: 158) state that misformation errors are characterized by
“the use of the wrong form of the morpheme or structure,” e.g.: the word ‘eated’
shown in *The dog eated the chicken. There are three sub-classifications of misformation, which are regularization, archi-forms and alternating forms.
Regularization that fall under the misformation category are “those in which
a regular marker is used in place of an irregular one,” as seen in *runned forran and *gooses forgeese. Archi-forms refer to forms selected by the learner. Dulay et al. (1982: 160) state that “a learner may temporarily select only one of the
English demonstrative adjectives this, that, these and those, to do the work for several of them,” as seen in that dogand *that dogs. Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111) name this kind of error overgeneralizing. The third category, alternating
form, refers to fairly free alternation that the learner makes, as seen in *those dog and*this cats.
d). Misordering
Like what the term infers, misordering is characterized by “the incorrect
placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance,” e.g.: *What daddy is doing?and *I don’t know what is that.
3). Comparative Taxonomy
According to Dulay et al. (1982: 163), “the classification of errors in
comparative taxonomy is based on comparisons between the structure of L2 errors
and certain other types of constructions.” In other words, as stated by Johnson and
errors are classified by similarity with children’s first language learner deviations
from target-language norms and/or by similarity with the errors made by L2
speakers from different L1 background.”
4). Communicative Effect Taxonomy
This taxonomy classifies errors based on the effect on the listener or reader.
Johnson and Johnson (1999: 112) state that in this taxonomy errors are classified
by “the effect they have on native speakers, whether in terms of comprehension or
in terms of the way that non-native speakers are perceived by native speakers.”
d. Sources of Errors
Researchers and linguists have thought of various possible sources or causes
of errors made by second language learners. Harmer (2007: 96) states that
someone will make errors if s/he has not quite comprehended the new
information. Another possibility causing errors in the learner’s sentence
production is due to the different way in expressing an idea or using a
grammatical construction between English and their first language.
Brown (1987: 82) argues that first language interference has apparently
become the most noticeable error made by second language learners. Moreover,
he adds that in order to facilitate the second language learning process, a person
will make use of any experiences s/he has had with language. As the opposite of
interlanguage, intralanguage deals with the second language itself. Richards
structure of the second language itself, “and through reference to the strategy by
which a second language is acquired and taught.”
According to Norrish (1983: 21-36), carelessness and first language
interference are the major causes of errors. Carelessness may occur as the learner
lacks motivation. The interference of the learner’s mother tongue can also become
the main contributor to error in the learner’s use of foreign language. Another
cause closely related to the learner’s first language interference is translation.
When the learner tries to translate word by word of idiomatic expressions in his
first language, what he does may result in fatal errors.
Richards (1974), as cited in Norrish (1983: 30), points out the general
order of difficulty as one of error causes. One example of the general error of
difficulty is the fact found by researchers stating that it is difficult for both native
speakers and EFL learners to distinguish between the English sounds /v/ and /D/
and /f/ and //. Errors can also be produced because of language creativity. For
instance, when a learner who merely has limited experience of the target language
needs to create a new utterance, he may make errors.
e. Ways to Minimize Errors
Cohen (1990: 60) states that correction of errors in oral production can lead
to positive effects. Correction may work better when the learners have already had
sufficient knowledge about the material involved. Yet, when the learners tend to
focus on the content or message that they want to convey through oral production,
out that learners should be encouraged to enhance their confidence. Thus, as long
as the meaning is clear, correction may not be applied.
Furthermore, according to Dulay et al. (1983: 19), exposure to formal
language environment, which consists of rule explanation and mechanical
practice, can be helpful to increase accuracy. Through formal language
environment, conscious rule application may happen when learners have
successfully learned the rules correctly.
2. Parts of the English Sentence
Before forming a sentence, it is essential to discuss parts of the English
sentence, particularly subject, predicate, operator, auxiliary, and predication.
a. Subject and Predicate
As Warriner (1982: 24) writes, an English sentence consists of two parts,
which are the subject and the predicate. The subject is the part about which
something is being said and the predicate is the part which says something about
the subject. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 11) give the description of the subject
and the predicate as follows.
The subject of the sentence has a close general relation to ‘what is being discussed’, the ‘theme’ of the sentence, with the normal implication that something new (the predicate) is being said about a ‘subject’ that has already been introduced in an earlier sentence.
Downing and Locke (2002) write that while the subject is the part of which
something is predicated in a clause, the predicate is the verbal part of a clause.
and the predicate of a sentence are interrelated because one part determines the
other part.
b. Operator, Auxiliary, and Predication
As predicate tends to be more complex compared to subject, Quirk and
Greenbaum (1973: 11) subdivide it into its elements. This particular division
distinguishes auxiliary as operator from predication, which is illustrated in Figure
2.1.
sentence
subject
auxiliary as operator
predicate
predication
given the girl an apple
He had
he
Had given the girl an apple?
Figure 2.1
3. Types of Question
Since questions can be various in forms, according to Quirk and Greenbaum
(1973: 191-192), there is a need to classify them according to the type of answer
which is expected.
1. Questions expecting only affirmation or rejection, or called yes-no questions.
2. Questions expecting information, calledwh-questions.
3. Questions that expect as the reply one of two or more options presented in
the questions. This form of questions is called alternative question.
In this study, the writer focuses on the formation of yes-no questions and wh- questions. Thus, it is also needed to know more about the types and the functions of bothyes-noquestions andwh-questions in order to be able to analyze the errors that the participants make.
a. The Types and Functions ofYes-noQuestion
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 206-209) write the types of yes-noquestion: (1) with an auxiliary verb (Will they be in Reno on Friday?), (2) with the be copula (Was Pamela a graduate student at the time?), and (3) with other verbs (Does Arlene play the organ on Sunday?).
The function ofyes-noquestions can be various. According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 218-219), its primary function is to ask for new
information or to clarify or confirm shared information. Moreover, yes-no questions, particularly those using modals, can also be used in requests for
(Would you like to sit for a while?), as commands (Would you please stand up straight?), as reprimands (Aren’t you a little old to be doing that?), and as complaints (Have you ever stayed home all day with a two-year-old?). Yes-no questions also have many other functions depending on the context and the
speaker’s intention.
b. The Types and Functions ofWh-Question
In general, the function of wh- questions is to expect a reply supplying an item of information (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1973: 192). They can also be used to
ask for the identification of the subject, object, complement or an adverbial of a
sentence. Azar (1989: A10-A11) gives more detailed functions and types of wh-questions.
1. Whenis used to ask a question about time (e.g.When will you come?). 2. Whereis used to ask a question about place (e.g.Where do you live?). 3. Whyis used to ask a question about reason (e.g.Why are you crying?). 4. Howis used to ask a question about manner (e.g.How does he drive?). 5. Whois used as the subject (e.g. Who came to visit you?) or the object
of a verb or preposition (e.g. Who did you see?) in a question which refers to people.
6. Whomis used as the object of a verb or preposition (e.g.Whom should I talk to?).
8. Whatis used as the subject (e.g. What made you angry?) or the object (e.g.What do you need?) in a question which refers to things.
9. Which is used when a question concerns choosing from a definite, known quantity or group (e.g.Which pen do you want?).
4. The Formation of Questions
The formation of question structures requires a transformation, a special
type of rule that can move an element from one position to another. The
transformation applied inyes-noquestions differs from that ofwh-questions. a. Yes-noQuestions
To form a yes-no question, e.g. Will the boy leave?, auxiliary inversion is involved. Auxiliaries can precede subjects in inversion structures. According to
O’Grady, Dobrovolsky, and Katamba (1997: 203), there are two steps involved in
this operation. In the first step, the usual XP rule is used to form a structure in
which the auxiliary occupies its normal position in Infl, between the subject and
the VP as seen in Figure 2.2.
S
NP VP
Det N Infl V
the boy will leave
Figure 2.2
The Deep Structure for the QuestionWill the boy leave?
The second step is called inversion which moves the auxiliary from the Infl
position to a position to the left of the subject. Hence, the result of this step is seen
in Figure 2.3.
Will the boy _____ leave?
Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 192) state that to form yes-no questions, the operator should be placed before the subject. When the sentence has no verb
phrase which can function as an operator, ‘do’ is introduced, e.g.: He likes Mary becomesDoes he like Mary?
b. Wh-Questions
According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 196), wh-questions are formed with the aid of one of interrogative words, which are who/whom/whose, what, which, when, where, howandwhy. In formingwh-questions, there is a movement operation called operator movement. It applies to expressions which contain an
(negative or interrogative) operator of some kind (Radford, 1997: 267). According
to O’Grady et al. (1997: 203), the transformation that moves the wh-phrase from its position in a deep structure to a position at the beginning of the sentence is
called wh- movement. As the example, O’Grady et al. (1997: 206-207) provide the following question:
What can the child sit on? Figure 2.3
The Surface Structure for the QuestionWill the boy leave?
The previous question has a deep structure as depicted in Figure 2.4.
S
NP VP
PP
NP
Det N Infl V P N
the child can sit on what
By applying wh- movement and inversion to the deep structure, the question becomes like what is shown in Figure 2.5.
What can the child ________ sit on ________?
Downing and Locke (2003: 32) write that inwh-interrogative clauses where the wh- element is subject, the subject is placed before the predicate. Similarly, Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 197) state that awh-question is formed not only by the initial placing of the wh- interrogative word but also by the inversion of subject and operator in all cases except that in which thewh-interrogative word is subject.
Wh movement inversion
Figure 2.4
The Deep Structure for aWh-question (O’Grady et al., 1997: 206)
Figure 2.5
5. Uninverted Questions
Spoken questions may also be formed without applying any transformation
but by putting final rising intonation in statements. Celce-Murcia and
Larsen-Freeman (1999: 214-216) name those questions uninverted questions, while
Gunlogson (2001) names them rising declarative questions. Frequently, rising
declarative questions are used to askyes-noquestions.
There are some restrictions to the use of uninverted questions. Gunlogson
(2001) states that uninverted questions differ from interrogatives because
uninverted questions can only be used when there is preceding context.
Conversely, “interrogatives are uninformative by nature and thus can meet the
condition in any context.” In addition, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999)
write that uninverted questions are marked “in the sense that the speaker who
poses the question is anticipating confirmation of either a positive or a negative
presupposition.”
B. Theoretical Framework
In this part, the writer would like to synthesize the relevant theories which
become the grounds to analyze the data. In defining error, the writer agrees with
Brown (1987: 171) and Dulay et al. (1982: 139), who state that the differences of
error and mistake cannot always be clearly observed. Thus, the writer regards all
deviant forms in forming English questions as errors. In addition, in order to
classify the errors that the participants make, the writer applies the error
150). Dealing with the structural deformations that a sentence undergoes (Johnson
and Johnson, 1999: 111), this taxonomy is relevant to the focus of this study,
which is the formation of English questions. Nevertheless, the writer does not
differentiate between archi-forms and alternating forms as they both refer to errors
as the result of alternation in sentence production. Uninverted questions, which
can only be applied in restricted contexts, are also considered as deviant forms in
question formations. It will require careful analysis to determine whether the
participants produce them in appropriate circumstances.
Furthermore, besides the interview results, supporting references and
theories are beneficial for the writer to both discover the causes for the errors and
propose possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical
English questions. The writer, then, may have interference in elaborating the
interview results in order to explain more about what has been found through the
25 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology as a means to answer the
research questions, which covers research method, research participants, research
instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research
procedure.
A. Research Method
The basic principle underlying this study was qualitative method, which
does not deal with numerical data (Brown and Rodgers, 2002: 12). According to
Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002: 25), qualitative research aims to get a holistic
depiction and in-depth understanding, rather than to obtain numerical analysis of
data. In particular, this research was a document analysis. Ary et al. (2002: 27)
state that the focuses of document analysis are the analysis and the interpretation
of recorded materials. The documents which were analyzed in this study were the
transcripts of the video recordings of the participants’ teaching performances. As
a qualitative one, this research spotted the types of error and the reasons causing
the errors, rather than the number of errors that the participants made.
B. Research Participants
The participants of this research were 40 students from four different
them were, at least, in the sixth semester in 2008/2009 academic year. Assumedly,
all of them had taken Structure V class, the last Structure class offered in the study
program. As they had taken all Structure classes, they were expected to have
sufficient knowledge of English sentence structure. Hence, as teacher candidates,
they were required to apply what they had already learned in prior classes and
were expected to be as good as possible at English sentence production, both in
speaking and in writing. The sentence production emphasized in this study was
those of speaking.
C. Research Instruments
In order to obtain dependable data to answer the research questions, the
writer made use of two different types of research instruments.
1. Documents
In a qualitative study, written documents may also be useful to gain an
understanding of the phenomenon which is being investigated (Ary et al., 2002:
435). In this research, the type of documents used was the transcriptions of video
recording of the students’ performance while carrying out their teaching practice
in the Microteaching laboratory. Those documents became the data to answer the
first research question. In Microteaching class, every student is required to teach
their friends who pretend to be high school students. In each meeting, there are
five up to six students conducting the teaching practice. Every performance is
Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 29) points out that recorded data should be
transcribed before they are analyzed. Thus, after obtaining the video recordings,
the writer transcribed the performance of each participant, of which duration is
more or less 30 minutes, into written forms. From those transcriptions, the writer
found the errors in forming English questions that the participants made while
they were carrying out the teaching practice.
2. Interview
The instrument which was applied to answer the second research
question and to help the writer propose possible recommendations was interview.
Interviews are used to gather data on subjects’ opinions, beliefs, and feelings
about the situation in their own words (Ary et al., 2002: 434). Thus, the use of
interview in this study was to discover the causes why the participants made errors
in forming grammatically correct English questions, and to ask them about
possible solutions they may offer. Besides accommodating the causes for errors
based on the participants’ personal feeling or attitude, such as dislike and
carelessness, the writer also put emphasis on the causes for errors which are
related to the teaching and learning process that the students have experienced.
The type of interview used in this study was semi-structured interview. In a semi
structured interview, although the framework has been clearly prepared, it permits
the interviewer to change the order of the questions (McDonough and
3. The Researcher as Research Instrument
According to Poggenpoel and Myburgh (2003), researcher as research
instrument means that the researcher is the key in obtaining data from the
respondents. Furthermore, the researcher facilitates interaction with the
respondents so that they can share data regarding to their experiences. In this
study, the writer as the researcher became the one who obtained the data, which
were subsequently interpreted into meaningful information.
D. Data Gathering Technique
To answer the first research question, the writer gathered the data from the
students of Microteaching class, a subject offered in the even semester of the
2008/2009 academic year. The writer collected the data by transcribing their
recorded performance while doing their teaching practice.
As an attempt to answer the second research question, the writer conducted
an interview to discover the causes for the errors that the participants encountered
in forming English questions. To answer the third question, which is to give
possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English
question forms, the writer made use of the data from the interview as well as
supporting references and theories.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The writer analyzed the errors in English question formations found on the
omit necessary items or add unnecessary ones; they may misform items or
misorder them. Thus, surface strategy taxonomy, which highlights the ways
surface structures are altered, was seen to be relevant in categorizing the errors.
The surface strategy taxonomy can further be divided into four categories of error,
namely (1) omission, (2) addition, which consists of double marking,
regularization, and simple addition, (3) misformation, which consists of
regularization error, archi-form, and alternating form, and (4) misordering. In
addition, the writer also considered uninverted form of questions as deviant forms
in question formations.
After analyzing the errors, the writer interviewed five students who were
considered to make errors most frequently and variously. The writer then found
out why the students made errors in English question formations. The data from
the interview were also useful for the writer to propose possible recommendations
that would help the participants to improve the production of grammatical English
questions.
F. Research Procedure
The research was conducted in the even semester of 2008/2009 academic
year. The first step in conducting the research was obtaining the video recordings
of the participants’ performance. Considering the time constraint, the writer
obtained the data recorded on March 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16, 2009 from four
different Microteaching classes. The video recordings were then transcribed into
the participants made in forming English questions. The questions which were
analyzed were merely those made by the participants performing their teaching
practice, not by all class members. Afterward, the writer classified the errors into
the types based on surface strategy taxonomy. For each type of error, the writer
described and explained it.
Having done with the previous steps, the writer interviewed five participants
who were regarded as those making errors most frequently with diverse types of
error. The interview aimed to gain the participants’ opinions on the causes for
their errors in forming English questions. At last, the writer drew conclusion
including possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical
English question forms.
Figure 3.1. Research Procedure recordings of participants’
performance
Identifying the errors in the English question
formations
Describing and explaining the errors
Classifying the errors
Finding out the causes for the errors through
interview
Proposing possible recommendations to improve the production of
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of both the presentation and the discussion of the
research findings. There are three sections presented in this chapter. The first
section (A), which is the answer to the first research question, concerns itself with
the errors found in the English question formations that the participants made. The
second section (B) discusses the causes why the participants made the errors,
which also answers the second research question. As the answer to the third
research question, the last section (C) deals with possible recommendations in
order to improve the production of grammatical English questions.
A. The Errors in the English Questions 1. Data Presentation
As an attempt to obtain errors in forming English questions, the writer
analyzed the transcripts of the video recordings of 40 participants while they
practiced teaching in Microteaching class. The questions analyzed were only the
questions asked by the participants who were performing as teachers. Hence,
although some other participants made errors when they were pretending as
students, the writer did not analyze them since there was a possibility that the
participants intentionally made errors to test their teachers whether they were
aware or not of the errors.
In addition, the writer excluded questions in phrase forms, e.g. Another answers?, Amplaz what kind of?, into the analysis. The writer merely focused the analysis on the questions containing subject and verb to make it clearer to see the
rules violated in forming the questions. They were then classified into four
categories based on surface strategy taxonomy, which are (1) omission, (2)
addition, which covers double marking, regularization and simple addition, (3)
misformation, which consists of regularization, archi-form, and alternating form,
and (4) misordering. Yet, the writer did not find errors which fell into
regularization subcategory of both addition and misformation category. Moreover,
as stated in Theoretical Framework, the writer did not differentiate between
archi-form and alternating archi-form. The writer also classified questions which were the
results of uninverted form of questions into other errors.
There were 305 errors found in the formations of English questions. It
should be recognized that the number of errors is not the same as the number of
the erroneous questions since one question may contain more than one error. For
example, an erroneous question *When the expressions of sympathy you use?, whose correction should be When do you use the expressions of sympathy?, contains two errors falling under two different categories, which are omission of
‘do’ and misordering. The errors and the examples as well as the number and the
Table 4.1 The Classifications of Errors and Their Examples
No Category of Errors
Subcategory
of Errors Example of Errors
Number of Errors
Percentage (%)
Auxiliary ‘do’ What word you say to express happiness?
Singular marker Who get the answer?
‘Be’ What repetitive
Have you finished tell your friends about the story?
Plural marker What are the expression of giving
Article ‘a’ Who wants to be volunteer?
94 30.8
Double marking
Past tense marker
Did you ever heard this story before?
Present tense marker
Do you know what does family stands for?
Object How do you spell it it?
Subject Anyone volunteer to say something about the purpose of this procedure text?
Simple addition
Plural marker Where is the imperatives?
2 Addition
‘-s’ in non-finite verb
Who can helps Pita?
29 9.5
Continued from page 34
Do you have read a narrative, to read it using skimming
Do you ever ask your mother or
What is the moral value you can got from the story?
37 12.1
Continued from page 35
question Can you explain what is
‘Be’ as operator Why we are not allowed to use It is sad ending or happy ending? Being a mother is difficult?
Everybody got one?
5. Other Errors Uninverted forms
Usually it uses what kind or types of tense?
65 21.3
Total number of errors 305
2. Discussion
Based on the data presented, it can be shown that the participants made
errors which were quite various in types. This is not to mention the fact that based
on the transcriptions there was a tendency that a number of participants preferred
to switch the language into Bahasa Indonesia when they asked questions to the students. The reason for this case became unquestionable because it was definitely
language. Consequently, it became harder for the writer to find errors as they did
not speak in English. However, the findings are still interesting to discuss in this
part due to their diversity. The writer will discuss the findings by highlighting
some important points.
There were 94 errors or 30.8 % of the total errors regarded as omission
errors. ‘Do’, which is an auxiliary performing as operator, became one of the most
omitted items in the participants’ question production. Another example for this
kind of error is (1a)*What we call it?In the previous erroneous item, ‘do’, which should be put after ‘what’ is omitted. When it happens, the item becomes a noun
clause, not an interrogative sentence. Thus, the correction of item (1a) should be
(1b) What do we call it? Other cases like (2a) *You just buy it? and (3a) *You know? were classified into two categories, which are omission and uninverted form. When forming items either (2a) or (3a), the participants did not apply any
inversion and only put rising intonation at the end of the sentence and,
consequently, omitted ‘do’ before the subject. The grammatical forms of items
(2a) and (3a) therefore are (2b)Do you just buy it?and (3b)Do you know?
Under addition category, there were 29 errors or 9.5 % of the total errors.
One of the most influential errors found in double marking subcategory was that
of tense marker, such as (4a) *What did we got from this lesson? which is the deviant form of a grammatical question (4b) What did we get from this lesson? This kind of error is characterized by the existence of two items which are marked
for the same feature. In the latter example of erroneous item (4a), ‘did’ and ‘got’
subcategory are those related to double objects and subjects. Another subcategory
in addition category is simple addition. In simple addition, the participants simply
added features which should not be put in a grammatical sentence, e.g. (5a)*What is the main ideas of paragraph 26? Since the verb ‘is’ implies singular marker, plural marker ‘-s’ should not be added after the word ‘idea’. Hence, the question
will be (5b)What is the main idea of paragraph 26?
Although errors in the misformation category were only as many as 37
errors or 12.1% of the total errors, there were quite various forms of errors. Errors
are classified into this category when there is wrong form of the morpheme or
structure. As the writer did not find any error falling under regularization
category, there is only one subcategory, namely archi/alternating form. Most of
the errors classified into archi/alternating form category were those related to
overgeneralization of the use of certain auxiliaries, such as ‘do’, and ‘be’. Other
examples of this kind of error besides those presented in Table 4.1 are (6a) *Do you have finished? and (7a) *Maybe when you hear, you are say what? In (6a), the participant overgeneralized the use of ‘do’ as auxiliary while the sentence
already contained ‘have’ performing as the auxiliary. The correct question then
should be (6b) Have you finished? In (7a), the participant used ‘are’ instead of ‘do’ which already performed as the operator. Hence, the correction will be done
by changing ‘are’ into ‘do’ and put the word in the correct order so that it
becomes (7b) Maybe when you hear, what do you say? Other common errors in archi/alternating form were those related to incorrect application of certain verb
The fourth category, misordering, covered as many as 26.2% of the total
errors or 80 errors. In most cases, participants made errors when producing
embedded questions as seen in (8a) *Do you know what is it?This is actually the product of overgeneralization in the learner’s mind. Generally, second language
learners learn how to produce simple or direct questions first, e.g. What is it? When they have already acquired the knowledge, however, they may become
failed in producing indirect or embedded questions. Learners make errors for they
possibly invert the auxiliary as they usually do in forming simple questions, while
in embedded questions, auxiliary inversions are not applied. Thus, the correct
form of the example should be (8b) Do you know what it is? The inversion and do-insertion are only applied toDo you know, which should be followed bywhat it is since the auxiliary of the embedded question should remain in the same position as it is in a statement.
It was interesting to figure out that 21.3% of the total errors or 65 errors
were the results of the absence of an inversion in the question formation. In other
words, the participants tended to put rising intonation at the end of their
affirmative sentences to ask questions as seen in (9a) *You know?for (9b)Do you know?and (10a) *It is bored?for (10b) Is it bored?Being declarative statements with final rising intonation, uninverted forms of questions are actually acceptable
and familiar in spoken communication. However, they can only be used in
restricted contexts and determining whether they are produced contextually
correct needs thorough analysis. Therefore, the writer regarded them as deviations
Commonly, errors in uninverted forms also belonged to other categories. It
can be seen in the question (10a) *It is bored?, which could be categorized as both uninverted forms and misordering. It bears the characteristic of an uninverted
question for it is produced in a declarative form with final rising intonation.
Besides, it belonged to misordering category due to the wrong order of the words.
If an inversion is applied, the process will move the operator ‘is’ before the
subject. In another case, the question (9a) *You know? belonged to uninverted question as well as omission. It was also categorized as omission because there is
not any do-insertion in item (9a).
B. The Causes Underlying the Errors 1. Data Presentation
After figuring out and classifying the errors that the participants made, it
will be significant to know the grounds for the errors. Hence, dealing with the
second research question, the writer conducted semi-structured interview as the
instrument to discover the causes or sources why the participants made errors in
forming English questions. The writer chose five participants who made errors
most variously to be interviewed. For further information, the interview was
conducted in Bahasa Indonesia in order to make it more convenient for the interviewees to express their viewpoint. The interviews were recorded and
transcribed in order to make it easier to analyze the findings. The questions and
